Mike Kelly is a Record columnist. He may be contacted at kellym@northjersey.com.

SUPPOSE that last September’s gridlock on Fort Lee’s streets leading to the George Washington Bridge was not caused by Chris Christie’s gang of myopically politicized buddies. What if a group that intended real harm was responsible?

Of course, this did not rise to the level of a major assault such as we experienced on 9/11. But considering the thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of commuters thrown into a chaotic traffic crush, the obstruction of emergency vehicles and the potential — which never came to fruition — of a tragedy stemming from such massive blockages, it evoked some of our worst fears associated with terrorist-like mayhem.

Imagine how different things would have been had we believed this was a planned disruption by those who intended harm rather than a prank by political partisans.

Would we have been holding hearings such as those held last week debating the status of emails, text messages as well as calendars, cellphone records and computer entries related to the traffic snarl?

I don’t think so. It’s a good bet the FBI, armed with search warrants, would have already raided the homes and offices of all the suspects, carting off computers, letters and other documents and downloading emails and texts. It’s also a good bet someone would have been arrested by now.

I mention this in light of what took place in Trenton last week.

What was supposed to be a major court discussion about the constitutional rights of two key players in the gridlock controversy – Bridget Anne Kelly and Bill Stepien – turned out to be anything but that.

Attorneys for Kelly and Stepien suggested that the demands by a state legislative committee for them to turn over emails, texts and other items related to the lane closures amounts to an invasion of privacy. The attorneys also explained that the mere act of searching records and having to make judgments about what items were related to the lane closures would be a violation of Kelly’s and Stepien’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

Claim of privacy

Funny how public servants love to claim privacy in moments like this.

Kelly, who is not related to this columnist, was Christie’s deputy chief of staff. Stepien, a former Christie staffer, was running his gubernatorial reelection campaign at the time of the gridlock. Both were involved in back-and-forth communications over the decision by former Port Authority executive David Wildstein to reduce access lanes to the George Washington Bridge last September – a decision that resulted in four days of crippling traffic snarls on Fort Lee’s already crowded streets.

Does anyone really believe that such a decision was a “private” matter?

The gridlock resulted in town-wide chaos, played out on public streets. Thousands of motorists commuting across the bridge were blocked. Police and other emergency calls were delayed because the back-up traffic from the bridge spilled into Fort Lee’s streets.

This was no mere fraternity prank, but an act that had the potential for serious consequences.

Kelly’s attorney, Michael Critchley, is often touted as one of New Jersey’s top defense lawyers. Maybe he is. But consider the kind of legal gimmickry he got away with the other day in the courtroom of Superior Court Judge Mary C. Jacobson.

No proof Kelly wrote email

Critchley told Jacobson there was no proof that Kelly actually wrote the now-infamous email that appears to have launched the gridlock scheme: “Time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee.”

The message was sent from a private email account with Kelly’s name to Wildstein. It was made public after Wildstein turned it over with other documents to the state legislative committee probing the lane closure scandal.

Until now, no one has suggested that the email was not written by Kelly. Indeed, if Kelly did not write it, why didn’t she say so before this? The email led to her being fired by Christie and then publicly dressed down by the governor during a two-hour press conference in which he called her a “liar” and “stupid.” Common sense tells us that if Kelly had been unfairly fired and berated over an email she never wrote that she – or her attorney – would have said something by now.

But on Tuesday in court, Critchley pointed to the attorneys for the legislative committee and declared that “they have not proven that we sent this. They assume it. We all know when you deal with email, anybody could have access to an email account.”

Huh? Maybe that kind of stunt works well in a high school debating class. What place does it have in a courtroom where an important constitutional question is being discussed?

Afterwards, Critchley was still trying to defend himself. “At a proceeding like this,” he said, “no attorney has to concede, nor would an attorney concede, any fact that tends to damage his client. That would be legal malpractice.”

That’s true. But does defending your client allow you to invent facts?

The silly tactics of Critchley illustrate a fundamental problem at the heart of this controversy – namely that there are competing investigations.

There is a probe by a special joint Assembly and Senate committee. Then, there is an investigation by the U.S. Attorney’s office in Newark.

The committee is examining the work – and possible mistakes – of government employees to see if laws need to be changed, especially how the Legislature is allowed to monitor the Port Authority. It’s a political probe. And politics sometimes leads to off-the-wall tactics such as the one by Critchley.

Concern over indictment

The federal prosecutors in Newark are trying to determine if a crime has been committed. The lawyers for Kelly and Stepien worry that what their clients reveal to the committee will be used by the feds to issue an indictment.

The stakes are obviously high. And that may explain why Kelly and Stepien want to invoke their Fifth Amendment rights.

But would we be engaged in this constitutional debate if the federal prosecutors had stepped into this controversy earlier – and aggressively?

Maybe it’s time to see the lane closures for what they were. A group of people plotted to cause traffic havoc near the world’s busiest bridge. It may not have been a terrorist act, but it was more than a bunch of mischievous public servants engaged in mere horseplay.

This was an inappropriate act that may have risen to the level of a serious crime with real consequences and real victims. And the courts should be treating it as such.